January 24, 2022: Circumcision Sends Another Baby Boy to "Heaven"

 

It's happened before. And it will all happen again. But this time it happened in Texas.

I grow tired of writing these, so I'm just going to post the picture exactly as I found it on Facebook:

 

There's something cringe-worthy about parents who willingly allow their otherwise healthy child to have their genitals mutilated by a perfect stranger trying to somehow tie in their religion and "the will of god" into the picture.

"God needed him more than we did," the mother wrote. Yes. And apparently the doctor needed your child's foreskin more than he did. And you wanted your child to have a mutilated organ more than you wanted your child.

"He was always meant to be an angel." The deliberate justification of infanticide. So why don't we kill all children then? So that they all "get to heaven?"

And what do you mean "little did we know?" Did the doctors not explain the risks and complications of circumcision? Or he did and you signed the form anyway? One of these two things has to be true.

"Why do other babies get miracles but mine didn't? Why did this happen to us?"

So you wanted to have your child mutilated AND you wanted a miracle? Wonders never cease.

This is about as much as I can write on this. I'm not sure how long we intactivists have to say it or how many more babies have to die before we realize doctors shouldn't be doing this. The following is cut and paste. I can't anymore with this story.

Closing Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, hemorrhage, partial or full ablation of the penis and even death.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any death above "zero" is unconscionable.

May one day the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals be recognized for the medical fraud and violation of basic human rights that it is.

Related Posts:

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns"

The Circumcision Blame Game

 

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:

 

AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision

 

AFRICA: Two Boys Die Post-Circumcision Despite Thoughts and Prayers

 

FACEBOOK: Another Hemorrhaging Baby Post-Circumcision

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Death Surfaces

 

ITALY: Yet Another Circumcision Death

 

Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

RESEARCH: Male Infant Circumcision Named a Possible SIDS Factor

Intactivists have always known that death is one of the risks of circumcision, much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who always try to minimize it, if not completely pretend like it's not even there.

The problem with coming up with an accurate number for the risk factor of death from circumcision is that no one is counting, and people have incentive, financial, religious, cultural or otherwise, to keep from counting.

Financial Incentive
1.3 million babies are circumcised annually, and it brings a pretty penny to doctors who perform it, and hospitals who provide male infant circumcision as a service.

Doctors can charge anywhere from $400.00 to $700.00, maybe even more per head, and, at least in Alaska, hospitals can charge up to $2,000.00 in fees.

A malpractice lawsuit for a botch or death due to circumcision would not only cost doctors and hospitals millions, it could mean that respected medical organizations like the AAP would be compelled to condemn the practice, which is such a relatively simple procedure and an easy money maker.

Doctors and hospitals are not required to release this information, and it's not like medical organizations, some with a majority of members who profit from circumcision, are demanding it either.

To cover their tracks, doctors and hospitals may attribute the death caused by a circumcision to secondary causes, such as "hemorrhage" or "septic shock."

Additionally, parents who suffer guilt and regret for signing the consent forms are easily complicit in keeping their child's death under wraps.

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

Religious Conviction
Male infant circumcision is a closely safe-guarded possession in some religious communities, where the practice of male infant circumcision as a holy sacrament has been under attack for millennia.

Particularly in ultra-orthodox Jewish communities, members have been known to react with hostility when the practice and those who perform it come under scrutiny.

Particularly in New York, male infant circumcision as performed in ultra-orthodox Jewish community has been under the microscope after it has been discovered that mohels (ritual circumcisers) are spreading herpes to babies.

In ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcision, the ritual circumciser sucks the freshly circumcised child's penis directly with his mouth in a ritual procedure known as "metzitzah b'peh".

Some babies have died with herpes as the cause, and still many others have been infected.

When investigators have gone to find details, community members have been known to work together to protect the identities of those involved.

Fear of the Anti-Semite Card
As circumcision is the sensitive issue that it is, gathering data on adverse outcomes and effects of male infant circumcision could be ipso-facto be seen as "anti-Semitic" or "an attack on Judaism," so scientists and researchers may choose to ignore it in order to stay clear of controversy.

Instead of noting deaths and adverse outcomes, doctors and researchers may choose to say that circumcision is a "parental choice," shirking their onus of professional responsibility, and placing it on parents instead.

The recent publication of a research paper on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) factors in a medical journal might be a sign that times are changing, however.

Where No Researcher Has Gone Before
Whereas there have been a few attempts to come up with an estimate on deaths due to male infant circumcision, given the above factors, the numbers anyone can come up with are modest estimates at best.

And while most of these attempts merely attempt to count deaths due to circumcision,  in a recently published article, the authors make the bold move of going as far as to name male infant circumcision as a factor for SIDS.

Other factors, such as preterm birth, non-urgent pediatric surgeries and skin-breaking procedures are mentioned, but entire sections are dedicated to male infant circumcision.

I don't have the time to type a long, drawn-out post as I'd like to, so I'm just going to copy/paste relevant excerpts here.

From the abstract:

 We argue that the important characteristics of SIDS, namely male predominance (60:40), the significantly different SIDS rate among USA Hispanics (80% lower) compared to whites, 50% of cases occurring between 7.6 and 17.6 weeks after birth with only 10% after 24.7 weeks, and seasonal variation with most cases occurring during winter, are all associated with common environmental stressors, such as neonatal circumcision and seasonal illnesses.

From "Background"

Neonatal Circumcision

...

In North America, ~1.2 million male infants are circumcised every year (58) often within the first 2 days of life (59). Although not requiring general anesthesia, circumcision is an intensively painful procedure requiring adequate analgesia (60). Circumcision is associated with intraoperative and postoperative risks, including bleeding, shock, sepsis, circulatory shock, and hemorrhage (61–63) that can result in death (63, 64).

This part of the paper doesn't hold back and outright names the known risks and complications, complete with citations.

Infant deaths following religious neonatal circumcision have been known for at least two millennia (65). Talmud (the central text of Rabbinic Judaism) sages ruled in the first centuries A.D. that mothers with two children who have died following the surgery should receive an exemption from circumcising their infants. During the nineteenth century, developments in medical knowledge on one hand and the rise of Jewish “Enlightenment” on the other hand, brought many Jews to reject the authority of the Talmud and with that the practice of circumcision. A new wave of accusations toward Jewish circumcisers (mohels) and rabbis of infant deaths following circumcision soon appeared and prompted community leaders to appeal to the governing authorities to forbid this practice – efforts that were countered by rabbis’ threats to ban the admission of uncircumcised Jewish children from Jewish schools. The fierce arguments about the necessity of the procedure last to this day and led many Jews to opt their infants out of the procedure, including Theodor Herzl, one of the fathers of modern political Zionism (66).

Here, the authors don't shy away from talking about Judaism and death due to circumcision, even ritual circumcision as recorded in Jewish texts.

This is important, because often, Jewish advocates of circumcision like to say how much "safer" male infant circumcision is when a Jewish practitioner performs it.

Here we see that death due to circumcision is documented, and that children die, even when mohels are the ones performing it.

In the UK, Gairdner (67) estimated an annual rate of 16 per 100,000 circumcision-associated deaths for boys under 1-year old in a study that influenced the British government to exclude circumcision coverage from the National Health Service. Remarkably, the SIDS rates in the UK (0.38 per 1000) are much lower than in the USA (0.55 per 1000) (10) where most male infants are circumcised (58). Moreover, most of the deaths in the USA occur in non-Hispanic blacks (83% higher death rate compared with non-Hispanic whites). SIDS rates were 44% lower for Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites (68). Interestingly the circumcision rates among Hispanics are about half that of the two other groups (69).

Interesting observations!

This section goes into a lot more detail that I really don't have time to get into here (for this I encourage my readers to go read the paper itself right here), but I feel this last section warrants copy/pasting:

To date, circumcision in the USA, despite being the most common pediatric surgery, has not been subjected to the same systematic scientific scrutiny looking at immediate and delayed adverse effects, including pain [e.g., Ref. (112)], nor has circumcision status been included as part of a thorough SIDS investigation/registry or analyses [e.g., Ref. (2)] in spite of the male predominance of both neonatal circumcision and SIDS. However, based on assessment of risk of harms versus benefit, despite the latter including decreased risk of urinary tract infection (113), the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society (87), and several west European medical societies have recommended against routine neonatal circumcision (114), arguing that the benefits of circumcision to children are minimal, non-existent, or outweighed by the risks, and that circumcision is thereby unwarranted. The AAP’s recommendation in favor of this routine (115) has been widely criticized [e.g., Ref. (116)].

This reiterates what I have been saying on my blog all along; at least in the US, no one wants to look at the adverse affects of circumcision and document them. Circumcision is often ignored as a factor in many studies.

We intactivists have been saying it all along, but there is not a single respected medical organization in the West that recommends male infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature.

The author seems to be oblivious of the fact that the AAP didn't actually recommend male infant circumcision in their 2012 statement, instead saying that "the benefits are not great enough" to recommend male infant circumcision, and shirking professional responsibility on parents instead.

Before concluding, the authors make the three following testable predictions:

1. Neonatal Circumcision is a Risk Factor for SIDS
2. Neonatal Circumcision Accounts for a Large Fraction of the Gender Bias in SIDS
3. Circumcised Premature Infants are at High Risk

Conclusion
It's one thing to come up with a hypothesis and make predictions, and it's quite another to test it to see if the predictions are accurate or not.

Something tells me that there is still going to be some time before researchers actually go through testing this hypothesis, as they may yet feel inhibited by the implications of doing so.

No doubt there are going to be circumcision advocates that are already trying to attack this paper any which way possible, but I hope that the publication of this paper is only the beginning, and that more and more scientists get bold about calling out the elephant in the room that is circumcision, and about going through with testing hypotheses such as this one, and going through with publishing their collected data for all to see.


List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

 

New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

Saw this browsing through my Facebook news feed.

Baby dies after circumcision surgery

Health authorities probe case at Khorfakkan hospital

By: Staff
Published Thursday, July 21, 2016

 

A one-month-old Emirati boy died just after undergoing a circumcision operation at a government hospital in Khorfakkan, prompting the Ministry of Health to open an investigation into the case, a newspaper reported on Thursday.


Hamad Saeed, 23, said he took his son to the hospital for the surgery and waited for nearly two hours before the operation finished.


He told Emarat Al Youm daily that he saw his son carried out of the operation room covered with blood and that he was admitted to the intensive care unit.


“He was pale and my wife and I were much worried…I then heard the pediatrician arguing with the doctor who performed the surgery and realized that there is something wrong…10 minutes later, I was told my son is dead,” he said.


The paper said the Ministry of Health formed a committee to investigate the case and determine the cause of the baby’s death.


It quoted Saeed as saying he had reported the case to the prosecutor, who said that he would open a criminal case after receiving a coroner report.

 Original news article here. (Last accessed 7/23/2016)

Some may try to brush this child's death aside by blaming it on the physician; he should have done a better job. The circumcision didn't kill the child as much as the physician messed up. But here's an important question; was the surgery medically indicated? If there was no medical necessity, is it conscionable that the child was put at risk for death? When it comes to female circumcision, is it a matter of "physicians knowing how to perform the procedure well?" Were this any other surgery, the matter of medical indication would be immediately relevant.



Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is an elective, non-medical cosmetic procedure. The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death. These risks, however minimal they may be, are very real, and are exemplified by stories like these.

It is difficult to calculate the risks for complications because doctors who perform circumcisions and hospitals where circumcisions are performed have financial incentive to minimize the risks, if they are to report them at all. Hospitals and doctors are not required to release information on the adverse effects of male infant circumcision.

Whatever the risks may be, given that male infant circumcision is elective procedure, any deaths or complications above zero is unconscionable.

Related Posts:

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
 

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

Search Joseph4GI: Death-related posts

LATEST FROM AFRICA: 2 Circumcision Initiates Die

Yearly, circumcision initiation rites happen all over Africa. Every year scores of men either die, or they lose their penises to gangrene, but for whatever reason, these deaths and loss of external genital organs in male initiates are overshadowed by female circumcision.

In a recent news article, the deaths of two initiates have been reported. (Link available here. Last accessed 6/22/2016) A list of articles in past years can be read here.

For whatever reason, human rights activists come down hard on female circumcision, but when it comes to male circumcision, there is a deafening silence.

In some newsreports, readers are supposed to take comfort in the fact that some very shoddy "studies" show that male circumcision "could" "reduce" HIV transmission by "as much as 60%."

So male circumcision should still happen, although it should be performed by medical professionals, although death and other complications still happen when medical professionals perform them.

I ask, would human rights groups stop decrying female circumcision if "research" could "prove" that female circumcision "could" reduce HIV transmission by some magical number like "60%?"

Or would they still be decrying it?

What if female circumcision could be made "quick and painless" with "no detriment to female sexuality?"

Would it still be viewed as a human rights violation?

A paper calling for a compromise procedure for females has recently been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The authors are actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

There is a sexist, self-serving double-standard when it comes to publishing research on male and female circumcision. Whereas publishing "research" that claims that male circumcision is "harmless" if not "beneficial" is not a problem, publishing research that minimizes female circumcision or that it may even be beneficial, is.

Whereas "researchers" were eager to push the idea that "circumcision is a harmless intervention that could help prevent the spread of HIV," scholars discourage the publishing of research that would "play right into the hands of those who defend female genital cutting" and/or "encourage female genital mutilation."

It's not a problem if "research" gives the green light to tribal circumcisers of men to go ahead and perform circumcision on initiates, but it is a problem if research givesthe green light to tribal circumcisers of women.

Why is that?

Related Links:

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Male Circumcision and HIV in Africa: EPIC FAIL

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

Circumcision has claimed yet another child victim. It's all happened before, and until it is recognized for the barbaric genital mutilation it is, it will all happen again. But this time it happened in Italy.

I don't have time to make a long, detailed comment, so I'm just going to copy and paste the article verbatim. I'll provide a link to the original article here.

Baby dies in hospital after home circumcision

Doctor says 30-50% of Muslim circumcisions in Italy unauthorised

 

(ANSA) - Turin, May 30 - A one-month-old Ghanaian baby died in hospital on Monday, where he was brought by emergency services after suffering cardiac arrest following a home circumcision.
    The emergency call came from a building known as "Spazio Neruda" where hundreds of homeless or evicted families are squatting and where the boy's parents had brought him on Sunday evening and spent the night.
    "They circumcised their son yesterday, then they wrapped him with gauze and gave him paracetamol," said a Spazio Neruda resident.
 The mother has been reported to prosecutors for allegedly culpable homicide, ANSA sources said on Monday. The 35-year refugee, who has lived in Italy for five years, told investigators she gave the baby a 250mg dose of paracetamol - a dose only recommended for infants weighing over 12 kilos. The baby's father, a 33-year-old Ghanaian, has been tracked down but police are still trying to find the illegal 'doctor' who performed the circumcision.

    Mustafa Qaddurah, a pediatrician and councillor with the Islamic Cultural Centre of Rome, said Italy's national health system doesn't cover circumcisions performed for cultural, non-medical reasons.
    "That means you either go to a clinic, where it's expensive, or to these charlatans," Qaddurah said.
    He said an unauthorised circumcision costs about 30-50 euros.
    "According to our estimates, 30-40% of Muslims (living in Italy) prefer to have it done in their country of origin, but another 30-50% go to unauthorised personnel, who work in unsuitable places, with the result of killing babies or causing serious deformities, that we then see in our offices," he said.
    He said there were other similar deaths recently in Treviso and Puglia.

I can already imagine all the apologetics being thought up.

Is the solution to have male children circumcised by "trained medical professionals in a hospital setting, using sterile utensils and pain management?" Because the same could apply to female circumcision, and even so, children die. Keep in mind that this is medically unnecessary in a healthy, non-consenting child.

I'll say what I've always said: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Whatever anyone has to say concerning male circumcision is true of female circumcision.

Any and everything that can be said.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

How many times do I have to say it?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

I don't have time to write anymore for now.

I've said it all before.

Anyone who is interested could browse my past posts on the subject.

Related Posts:

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

 

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

Circumcision horror stories are common on Facebook, it's too bad they never make mainstream media. I can only imagine what we do see is only a tip of the iceberg.

This was on my Facebook news feed just a few days ago:

Children bleeding uncontrollably is the most common story I see, usually a mother asking for "prayers" because her baby "won't stop bleeding."

In Africa, where circumcision is being pushed as a "safe" HIV "prevention", a 14-yo boy has died during the procedure.

And, as usual, his parents and others are trying to blame something else.

Read a news article about it here.

The fact of the matter is this; the child was alive and otherwise perfectly healthy, and not in need of surgery.

The "benefits" the surgery was supposed to give him were already affordable by less invasive, more effective means.

Had he not undergone this needles surgery, the child would still be alive.

This happened at a hospital setting; yearly, scores of African boys undergoing tribal initiation rites die following their circumcisions. Still others lose their penises to gangrene; others commit suicide.

The risks of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhaging and even death.

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it conscionable that healthy, non-consenting minors are being put at these risks?

How is it concsionable that any number of botches, complications and deaths is deemed "acceptable?"

These are circumcision cases that manage to surface on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

When are respected medical authorities going to recognize the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors for the needless, harmful, deadly, abuse and violation of basic human rights it is?

Related Posts:

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns" - OK, Well Just What Are They?

So there's a new circumcision "study" making waves in the media. And do you know what it found?

Take a wild guess!

You only get one.

Were you thinking "circumcision is beneficial?"

HAH!

Close, but no cigar.

Try again.

Were you thinking "the benefits outweigh the risks?"

Nice try, but the AAP already said that. (Strangely enough they didn't recommend it in newborns.)

Alright I'll tell you; the "study" (if it can even be called that; all it is is just a review of cherry picked data, just like all the rest...), "found" that "the risks of circumcision are few in newborns and increase with age."

Surprise!

But were you, really?

Is it any wonder that a "study" written by a circumcision monkey at an American health organization "discovered" that the best time to circumcise a child is (surprise again!) when American doctors do it?

But let's just run with it.

OK, great! So they found the best time to perform circumcision. Is that anything like "the best time" to perform a prostatectomy? Appendectomy? Maybe there's a prime age to perform a heart transplant.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

This article raises more questions than it answers.

Perhaps circumcising a child is "less risky" (actually, some argue this is patently false), but what is the likelihood that a child will need circumcision in adulthood? Does this increase with age?

Without clinical or medical indication, how would this piece of knowledge be relevant?

Even if...
In the opening statements of this study, the lead author, Charbel El Bcheraoui, estimates that 1.4 million circumcisions are performed in American hospitals annually. (This contradicts a previous statement by none other than El Bcheraoui himself, claiming a rate of 32.5% in 2009.)

The study reviewed the medical history of approximately 1.4 million males circumcised between 2001 and 2010, and the researchers calculate the rate of complications (euphemised as "adverse events") to be less than 0.5%

 0.5% sounds infinitesimally small and tolerable level of complications, but given the author's own estimate of 1.4 million infants circumcised annually, that's between 5,600 (0.4%) to 7,000 (0.5%) baby boys that will suffer "adverse effects" from circumcision.

The AAP said in their last statement that “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (eg, early or late).” The statement also indicates that “Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expenses) are unknown.” Additionally, catastrophic injuries were excluded from the report because they were reported only as case reports, not as statistics. (In other words, no one has bothered to collect them; it would not be in the interests of circumcising doctors to collect and report this data.)

For this new "study," researchers note that some complications might not have been picked up because they were reviewing claims data on problems that typically occurred within the first month following the circumcisions.

This would exclude complications undetected by the parents, such as skin tags, skin bridges and/or uneven scarring. A good deal of revisions for circumcision botches happen well outside the one-month bracket in this "study." This would exclude those complications that will not be detected until adulthood, such as painful erections caused by the removal of too much skin, lack of sensitivity, etc.. This would likely exclude meatal stenosis, where there is a high prevalence in circumcised males (see here and here), possibly as consequence of ischemia (poor blood supply) to the meatus or permanent irritation of the meatus caused by friction with the diaper and resulting in scarring.

OK, So What Are the Risks?
Let's accept the claim that "the risks of circumcision are low in infancy and increase with age." Just what are the risks? And are they conscionable given that this is elective surgery on healthy, non-consenting infants were talking about?

The risks include infection, hemorrhage, partial or full ablation of the penis and even death.

Again, that's between 5,600 (0.4%) to 7,000 (0.5%) baby boys that will suffer "adverse effects" from circumcision annually, given this study's 1.4 million figure.

El Bcheraoui claims that a 0.5% complication rate is low. But how low is that when it means 5,600 to 7,000 baby boys will suffer complications annually? And why aren't we talking about what those complications are?

Because this is elective, non-medical surgery, how is anything above zero conscionable?

Complications aren't just numbers on a screen...
I constantly see circumcision complications on my news feed on Facebook. Here is just one example of that "0.5%"

Lucky this poor little boy made it... Baby Brayden wasn't so lucky...

And because no "researcher" has decided to collect peer-reviewed statistics on it, it more than likely was not part of El Bcheraoui's "study."

This "study" is self-serving rubbish.

But even if we were to take the skewed 0.5% figure at face value, that's still way too many babies suffering due to needless surgery.

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

I've made many posts regarding circumcision death on this blog. I hate writing them. I wish the genital mutilation of children and the deaths that attend it would stop.

I won't write long; I think I've already written enough circumcision death posts this year. Somehow, I don't think it will be the last.

This case happened back in 2008-2009 and is just now coming to light, which should lead the reader to ask, if this one is only just now surfacing, how many others have been buried and just sort of forgotten?

Basically a boy was circumcised, he lost 40% of his blood which was never replenished. His doctors tried to remain cool and calm about it, saying the boy didn't need a blood transfusion, and that he didn't need to be rushed anywhere. They acted as if the boy's condition wasn't any kind of emergency that needed immediate treatment. The boy suffered cardiac arrest while he was being transfered between hospitals by his parents in their car. In the end, the boy ended up completely brain dead due to the little oxygen reaching his brain.

Asked if they would have done anything differently, his doctors say they wouldn't have changed a thing, and still would have reacted the way they did.

"The boy had a pre-existing condition," it could be said.

"He would have died anyway."

Did the doctors test for any potential danger before having done the procedure? (Without medical or clinical indication, how could they even have elicited parental consent?)

Did the doctors act appropriately following this child's complications?

Had they acted differently, would this child have still been alive?

Did the doctors intentionally try to keep this child's case low-key?

Are the doctors acting in complete denial to save their own skins?

Read the whole story and judge for yourself:

Healthy Newborn Dies Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

Death is a risk for circumcision.

We do not know how big of a risk there is, because doctors and mohels tend to attribute circumcision deaths to something else to protect their trade, and medical organizations like the AAP can't be bothered to collect data that would jeopardize their fellows.

How many deaths due to circumcision are "acceptable," especially given the fact that this is elective, medically unnecessary procedure?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
  

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

And the story repeats itself, yet again.

Another baby dies following his circumcision, and, again, circumcision didn't kill him, it was something else.

It's always something else, isn't it.

The men with the knives are never to blame.

Reads the Jewish Press article:

"It was reported by the rabbinate that “since the initial diagnosis, the doctors who treated the baby were convinced that the complication in the baby’s condition was not the result of the circumcision but resulted from a previously existing medical condition."

What could it have been, then? Was there anything done to determine there were any "previously existing medical conditions" prior to the boy's mutilation?

“An investigation revealed that the mohel who performed the circumcision is a veteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followed procedure and performed a test on the baby after the rite. Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself. The mohel accompanied the family to the hospital.”

Yes, being a "certified veteran" already puts one beyond suspicion, doesn't it. What is the reason this "veteran" performed the "test" after, not before the procedure?

Read it again:

"Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself."

The deliberate denial in this story is absolutely unbelievable.

"A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDA paramedics were called to a synagogue in Holon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there had stopped breathing and lost consciousness, shortly after the ceremony. The rescue crew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospital shock room, the baby’s condition stabilized."

Yes, I'm sure the fact this child died had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was submitted to a needless, excruciatingly painful circumcision prior. This sounds awfully familiar to the Amitai Moshe case that happened in England.

"After investigating the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly..."

Yes, "flawlessly." So "flawlessly" that the child is now dead.

I wonder what constitutes as "flawless." Is that anything like a "flawless" female sunat?

"...and apparently baby choked during feeding.

'The bris had concluded safely and then everyone sat down to eat,” Abraham, a friend of the family, related. 'He was nursing from his mother and then she put him in his cart. At some point we noticed that the child was not responding and had turned blue.'"

Got that? It was the mother's fault. She should have known better than to feed him.

It is simply beyond belief the way the painfully obvious is ignored here to protect tradition and evade responsibility.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, and, until people have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade, it won't be the last.

In the UK, another boy, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before.

Read the shameless story here.

(Read Jewish Press article on the current incident in Israel here.)

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
 

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

It has all happened before.

And, until the non-therapeautic circumcision of infants is banned, it will all happen again.

But this time, it happened in Sacramento, California.

Within the last hour, Brayden Tyler Frazier died after circumcision put him in critical condition.

He started bleeding uncontrollably after he was circumcised Wednesday at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

EDIT: The circumcision was actually carried out in Lodi, not at UC Davis Medical Center, as Brayden's grandfather has clarified. He was transferred to UC Davis Medical Center afterward, and the doctors there had absolutely nothing to do with Brayden's circumcision.

They tried to use coagulants, platelets, plasma etc. to try and save his life, but to no avail.

His body started having seizures because of it, which lead to his liver and kidneys starting to shows signs of failure.

He was 9 days old when he was circumcised, and he died at 11 days of age.

He was alive and well for 9 days until the day he was circumcised, and it was found that he had hemophilia.

EDIT: Brayden's grandfather says that he had been ill and taken to the Dr. for 2 days prior to the circumcision, as Brayden was sleeping constantly and not eating. Initial sticks and pricks were not healing quickly, and most bandages were kept on him for 2 days before the wounds sealed. It appeared his body was not producing "clotting" materials prior to the circumcision. But, according to Brayden's grandfather, "...it wasn't so much that anyone was alarmed."

His parents are now grieving at the Lodi Memorial Hospital.

As a Californian who was born and raised in this area, this is very, very close to home for me.

What will happen now?

Here's what will happen.

Just like all circumcision deaths, this one will be swept neatly underneath the rug.

The cause of death will be recorded as "hemorrhaging to death."

Hemophilia will be blamed.

EDIT: "He had "generalized bleeding"...sepsis, among other things," according to Brayden's grandfather.

The baby will have died of "organ failure."

No mention is going to be made of his circumcision.

Ever.

Nobody is going to ask why doctors didn't test the child for hemophilia (or any potentially hazardous conditions) prior.

Everyone will demand nobody bother the parents because they are grieving.

They will not press charges.

They will be complicit in covering up this circumcision, and protecting the doctor that did it.

They may have yet another child, and go on to circumcise him too.

People will keep quiet, and demand others do too.

And so it will continue.

One conservative estimate says that 117 deaths a year happen in the US as a result of circumcision.

Although, a recent study in Brasil suggests that rate is closer to 156 deaths a year.

Because circumcision is performed in healthy, non-consenting children without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how is anything above 0 conscionable?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Were these parents not made aware of this risk?

Do the benefits truly "outweigh" it, as the AAP repeats over and over?

Or was this child's death not important "because he was going to die anyway?"

I hate having to write these.

When will it end?

Note: Pictures and links to Facebook accounts were not used for this post in respect of the grieving parents.

Update (3/9/2013):

Already, Brayden's family is taking down pictures and status updates on Facebook. They're already trying to change their story to make it sound like Brayden's circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with his death, and accusing activists such as myself, of "misconstruing and exploiting Brayden's story for our own selfish purposes."

This seems to be an exact replay of Joshua Haskin's death.

It's rather sad that the health and well being of children is considered a "selfish cause" by some.

A child has died because of a needless operation.

More deaths like these can be prevented.

But more important is to preserve the fantasy that he didn't, for the parents' (and the doctors') sake.

So what is more selfish?

You be the judge.

We are being called liars who are "misconstruing," but sadly, this is the internet, and the whole thing, pictures and status updates, was caught on screen shot.

A friend on Facebook made the following observation:

"If someone had stabbed him, and he bled to death, no one would blame the child's condition. It would have been crystal clear that the injury killed him."

To which I say, EXACTLY.

They seem to be a family of faith.

Let it remain in their conscience who the real "liars" are.

Meanwhile, may Brayden rest in peace.

And may one day baby boys be spared from needless deaths like this one.

"Every time a baby dies from circumcision, there's something else involved. Bleeding. Infection. Anesthesia. Shock. Stroke. Heart attack. There's always something that can take the blame. Vulnerable parents are going to choose those things to blame, and so are the guilty medical professionals, because those things were beyond their control, and circumcision was elective and unnecessary. They are in a place where they CAN NOT admit the truth, and it is counterproductive to try." ~Aubrey Terrón

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies